|
silence_kit posted:Honestly, I think that the attempts made by posters in this thread to clearly demarcate the "valid" identities from the "invalid" identities are bogus and are just self-delusional attempts to give their own personal opinions about society a fake legitimacy. The decision of which identities are acceptable ones is totally arbitrary and depends on what social attitudes are with respect to the identities at the time. Maybe one day furries and people who believe that they have headmates will become socially acceptable too and thus will become "valid" identities. Oh bullshit. We've got medical studies that show differences in brain structure for transgenders or a case of actual multiple personalities or schizophrenia. That's how we know those are valid. That you are mentally a species that we split from millions if not billions of years ago and have no anatomical connection to, or that you are possessed by the "soul" of a fictional character, while not presenting with any defined psychological or neurological phenomena marks it as pretty clear that those are not valid. silence_kit posted:This is just a longer way of saying what I said earlier. The distinction between the "valid" and "invalid" identities is that the "valid" ones are popular and socially acceptable, and the "invalid" ones are not. No, the difference is we can do an MRI for one set and see "yep, matches known cases" and the other set aren't grounded in reality. What would eventually become us split off from what would eventually become a squid back in the Cambrian era. Half a billion years later, the neurological structure is completely different and the theory of mind is different, so yes, we can say with perfect knowledge that you are not actually a squid, and to identify as one is not valid. You might be a candidate for being diagnosed with any other of a number of neurological conditions, but those don't validate your self diagnosis that we have proven is false.
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:25 |
|
|
Blue Star posted:What if there was a person claiming to be transgendered, and yet when you looked at their brain via MRI they ended up having a typical brain for their assigned-at-birth gender? So a guy saying he's a trans woman, but when you look at their brain it looks very much like an average male brain. Are they faking it, or what? If things were totally different obviously things would be totally different. But we have science backing it up, and posters have been posting links to studies backing it for pages, so it isn't. quote:Is it necessary for transgenderism to be "backed up" by neuroscience for it to be valid?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:My argument was in FAVOR of transgenderism, not against. It's like homosexuality: people are arguing back and forth over whether it's innate/in-born or if it's a conscious choice, but the reality is that it doesn't matter. Could the same be true of transgenderism? Just like we don't need to test a gay or bi person to see if they're really genetically gay or if they just up and arbitrarily decided to be gay/bi one day, maybe all this talk of neuroscience is pointless. There are people who obviously feel strongly enough about their gender that they decide to undergo invasive and dangerous and irreversible surgery, as well as open themselves up to ridicule, harassment, mockery, and even violence. And yet more people are "coming out". That should be evidence enough that transgenderism is valid. Personal conviction is not proof that something is real. Plenty of people believe complete bullshit. Whether you intend it that way or not, the fact that you are trying to spin it as such is pretty derogatory towards people who do have actual validated conditions by putting the people who just believe in something really hard on the same level as those who have been medically diagnosed and have to deal with that reality every day. Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Jun 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:So a trans person isn't real unless they've been medically diagnosed? Can people self-diagnose themselves as trans?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Is it possible that someone can think that they're trans, but actually aren't? What if someone believes themselves to be trans, gets their brain looked at, and is told "Hmmmm. Your brain looks typical for your sex and birth gender." Does that mean that they cannot get HRT and/or SRS? No, you are loving trolling. But in the event anyone else is getting taken in by your crap, yes, you do need to be diagnosed to transition. No medical diagnosis means no access to medical treatment, which is no different from every other medical treatment that exists. You don't get hormones next to the Tylenol at Walgreens, you don't get over gender identity disorder by deciding not to be sad, and you don't do SRS like trimming your fingernail. Hormones and other medications are prescribed by a doctor and their effects monitored with dosage and frequency varied to best treat the patient. Proper counseling to meet the standards of care is handled by a psychiatrist who assists with the depression, anxiety, and other aspects of transitioning through gender identity. SRS is a fairly invasive surgical procedure and comes only after counseling and pretreatment to allow it to go smoothly. It's a medical condition with a intense and uncomfortable medical response to achieve the best quality of life for the individual, and your "well I can just think I have it and then decide to live my life that way" line is absolutely disgusting. Blue Star posted:...What the hell does this even mean? Are you saying that, yes, trans people with brains typical of cisgendered people of the same sex really are either faking it or delusional? He's pointing out you are concern trolling to bash trans people, that's what it means.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2014 07:14
|
|